Bartcop | BuzzFlash | Huffington-Post | blah3.com | Eschaton | Today in Iraq
The first election winner in history to declare the results are a fraud!
  Chat | Problems posting? | FAQ | Crooks & Liars | Digby | The-Sideshow | Forum Bloggers



Support the Forum








Click for www.electoral-vote.com




BCForum Bloggers
By Blogrolling.com















Subject: "NATO strike kills 25 civilians" This topic is ARCHIVED.
First topic | Last topic
Printer-friendly copy | Email this topic to a friend
Top Bartcop Forum Bartcop Forum Topic #415076
Show all folders

CarbonDateFri Jun-22-07 04:04 AM
Member since May 31st 2002
4562 posts
Send a private message to this user Add this user to your buddy list
"NATO strike kills 25 civilians"


          

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Suspected Taliban militants attacked southern Afghanistan police posts, triggering clashes and NATO airstrikes that left 25 civilians and 20 militants dead, a senior police officer said Friday.

The militants attacked police and used civilian houses for cover in Helmand province's Gereshk district late Thursday, said provincial Police Chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal.

NATO responded by calling in airstrikes that killed 20 suspected militants -- but also 25 civilians, including nine women, three babies and the mullah of a local mosque, Andiwal said.


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/22/afghan.violence.ap/index.html

Al Jazeera provides a bit more in-depth coverage:

In the afternoon, de Hoop Scheffer privately met Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, in Ottawa, as well as Peter MacKay, the foreign affairs minister and Gordon O'Connor, the defence minister.

Canada has deployed 2,500 troops in southern Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Harper's minority Conservative government has refused to say if it is considering an extension, but managed to scuttle an opposition motion in the House of Commons in April demanding a fixed withdrawal date.

De Hoop Scheffer's request to extend the mission comes one day after three Canadian soldiers died in a roadside blast in the Kandahar region.

Ninety-one foreign soldiers have now died in Afghanistan this year, most of them in combat and about half of them from the US which has the most soldiers in the international operation in Afghanistan.

Wednesday's attack brought Canada's death toll in Afghanistan since 2002 to 60. A senior Canadian diplomat was also killed in an attack.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/71BDE8A6-2FEC-4DC6-905D-30351F06977C.htm

Things appear to be heating up on both fronts, and this whole two-front war we've been in may be coming to a head. Unless things improve significantly by next year, I don't see these wars dragging on too much longer.

What? Did I just say that? Yeah, I did. I can't see how any President, regardless of party affiliation, can possibly let this continue. It has been a drain on President Bush's legacy, and I know full well that whomever gets elected will want to get re-elected. Regardless of what they think now, once they're in the hot seat, presiding over a war that likely 80% or more of the American public will oppose out-right by the time they get in, they'll want to get this heat off of their backs, no matter what it takes.

The question is: how long will it take said President to realize that it's not salvageable and that we need to cut our losses? Lives depend on the answer to that question.

Maybe I'll feel differently later, but the fact that this is all a complete cluster-fuck has become such a consensus with friggin' everybody that the politicians will have to notice at some point.

Here's hoping.

-----------
CarbonDate Blog
http://carbondate.proboards33.com

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

tnbFri Jun-22-07 04:21 AM
Member since Feb 20th 2003
1596 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Like the bumper sticker sez"
In response to Reply #0


          

"We're making enemies faster than we can kill them"

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

ThroggFri Jun-22-07 05:05 AM
Member since Apr 22nd 2002
2717 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"RE: NATO strike kills 25 civilians"
In response to Reply #0


          

So we'll mark you down for 2 Freidman Units.

All the prominent GOP candidates are pro-war so I don't see how it'll help them to pull out before the election. That would just pull the rug out from under them and leave them scrambling to come up with post war plans on short notice. If anything, Smirk has to stay for thier sake if nothing else. The GOP is locked into this and there's no way out for them before election time.

After that they can do whatever they have to. It won't matter anymore, and if it stands everything they've been saying on it's head so what, it'll be what the people want and they'll be forgiven.

Of course the war itself will make it that much harder for any of them to get elected, but that's the box they've put themselves in.


mundus vult decipi

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

    
CarbonDateFri Jun-22-07 05:30 AM
Member since May 31st 2002
4562 posts
Send a private message to this user Add this user to your buddy list
"Perhaps I should clarify."
In response to Reply #2


          

I didn't intend to imply that this administration would pull the plug on it, just that any future administration will have little choice but to withdraw completely within the first two years of their administration. Also, unless "the surge" is the smashing success that none of us expects it to be, Congress is going to incrementally make it more difficult for the President to continue escalating matters. Even a GOP candidate is going to want an "out".

Bush is "staying the course" right now, but I think his intention is to get the oil law passed before he leaves office. That way his potential GOP successor can declare victory and withdraw, and his potential Democratic successor can't screw up his plans for the Big Oil Grab. Naturally, not all of them would screw it up for him, but it's a long primary season and anything can happen.

We're not going to have the strategic military location that this administration wanted, but we can still maintain control of the oil flow. That will constitute victory in of itself.

If a Democrat is elected, I'm sure Bush will do anything he can to piss in the punch bowl before he leaves. Attack Iran, something like that. Legislation putting a leash on him will be necessary to prevent that, but we'll need some significant Republican support in order to pull it off. That or an impeachment if he tries it. Maybe legislation that will give commanders enough wiggle room to refuse the order? They'll know that he's on his way out and that they'll will have to answer to his Democratic successor soon enough. That's our only hope, I think.

But again, maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow.

-----------
CarbonDate Blog
http://carbondate.proboards33.com

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

        
pandoraFri Jun-22-07 07:06 AM
Member since Feb 04th 2004
7643 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"RE: "Legislation putting a leash on him" - slim chance"
In response to Reply #3
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 07:14 AM by pandora

          

on edit:
I just looked up the roll call on this resolution:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll513.xml

....
Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 217 1 9 4
Republican 194 1 2 4
Independent
TOTALS 411 2 11 8
....

The 2 NAYS were Kucinich and Paul.


From Kucinich:

The United States House may unwittingly be setting the stage for a war with Iran.

....
No Questions Asked?
Congress Votes to Send the President of Iran Before a United Nation's Court While Refusing a New York Times Translation of the President's Remarks

Washington, Jun 20 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today the House of Representatives passed H. Con.Res.21, a resolution that pressures the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his alleged calls for the destruction of Israel.

"There is reasonable doubt with regard to the accuracy of the translations of President Ahmadinejad's words in this resolution. President Ahmadinejad's speeches can also be translated as a call for regime change, much in the same manner the Bush Administration has called for regime change in Iraq and Iran, making this resolution very ironic," Kucinich said.

Kucinich attempted to insert into the Congressional Record two independent translations of the speech from The New York Times and Middle East Media Research Institute, which contain significant differences in the translations of the speech compared to the resolution before the House. However, Members objected formally and the attempt was blocked.

"When I learned of these translations, I felt obligated to bring it to the attention of the House. It seems that much has been lost in translation. Members have a right to know of the translations and the refusal to permit them to become a part of the Congressional Record does a disservice to Members."

A similar House resolution, H. Res. 523, passed the House two days after the October 26, 2005, speech and before these translations were available. Kucinich supported that resolution in the 109th Congress.

"I am unequivocal in my support for the security and survival of Israel, and I do have serious concerns with the remarks made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. But, I object to resolutions that lay the groundwork for an offensive, unprovoked war.

"The resolution passed by the House today sets a dangerous precedent in foreign affairs. A mistranslation could become a cause of war. The United States House may unwittingly be setting the stage for a war with Iran.

"We must make every effort to ascertain the truth because peace in the world may hang in the balance. The only way to definitively know what President Ahmadinejad meant is for the United States to engage in meaningful, diplomatic relations with the country of Iran."
....
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=67929


Why aren't they referring BushCo to the UN for genocide?????

Sorry to say this, but I don't think Congress is going to stop them-
or even try.


Quote:

Originally posted by CarbonDate

If a Democrat is elected, I'm sure Bush will do anything he can to piss in the punch bowl before he leaves. Attack Iran, something like that. Legislation putting a leash on him will be necessary to prevent that, but we'll need some significant Republican support in order to pull it off. That or an impeachment if he tries it. Maybe legislation that will give commanders enough wiggle room to refuse the order? They'll know that he's on his way out and that they'll will have to answer to his Democratic successor soon enough. That's our only hope, I think.

But again, maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow.

-----------
CarbonDate Blog
http://carbondate.proboards33.com




"People aren't looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war,
they want the Democrats to end the war and to bring our troops home."
- Dennis Kucinich

~Write hard, die free.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

        
ThroggFri Jun-22-07 08:47 AM
Member since Apr 22nd 2002
2717 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"RE: Perhaps I should clarify."
In response to Reply #3


          

OK, gotcha on the timing. As for control of the oil flow, that'll be a priority for whoever runs things. We need that oil.

I don't think there's anything that can or would be done about restricting his war powers, and the idea that the military would refuse his orders is unimaginable. We'll just have to hope he doesn't do anything too much crazier than he already has.

Impeachment seems like a real longshot too for various reasons, but if things got really close to the edge he could be removed from office under the provisions of the 25th amendment. Hard to envision how that might play out, though.


mundus vult decipi

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

Top Bartcop Forum Bartcop Forum Topic #415076First topic | Last topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1
Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com